The table does not apply to the climate change because it is simply not possible to make any claim about the likelihood of major consequences from climate change. To illustrate the problem look at tobacco: we can quantify the risk of developing cancer from smoking because we have the experience of millions of smokers to use as a basis for calculation which means the result of the calculations is very credible. No such equivalent exists with the alleged consequences of climate change because these consequences have never occurred before. Making a claim about climate change today would be like someone making a claim that smoking causes cancer based on rat testing before anyone ever actually developed cancer. The rat testing would be sufficient to argue that there is a concern but it would NOT be sufficient to make the claim that cancer is a likely outcome of smoking.
I see your point Tim about rats and tobacco cancer. My opinion on CC is that we can't precisely predict the future of how warming will occur or what it will affect. We're dealing with literally millions of variables, and many that we don't even know exist. That many variables is impossible to put into any model to predict accurately what will occur. But what science can do is provide ranges of probability of certain things occurring based on what we know and the best data we have. This is what the IPCC reports have done. It's not perfect or precise, and no data model is perfect or meant to be perfect, including models used to predict weather 7 days from now or even 3 days from now. Weather is different than climate yes, but both use data models to try and predict future events based on probability, not certainty.
What we also know virtually for certain is that change will come and is starting to occur already, to organisms and ecosystems and human habitats. Fast-occuring, significant, and longterm change is not good for most species, change in their environment and ecosystems they are unable to adapt to is what makes species die or go extinct, this is the nature of nature.
Not significantly reducing GHG will likely cause many organisms and species to die or go extinct, and will be extremely expensive for humans to adapt, and will cause some deaths especially in the developing world where they don't have the money or means to adapt as well. The flooding we've seen in the spring in last year in North America is just one small example of what could happen. On the other hand, significantly reducing GHG will also be very expensive to adapt, and may also cause deaths especially in the 3rd world since reducing our standard of living may also reduce health outcomes or make things like food and medicine more expensive. People who think moving swiftly to green tech will be cheap and as inexpensive and productive as fossil fuels (at least in foreseeable future) are fooling themselves.
Personally i'd be cool with giving up a bit of my standard of living and wealth to save a gazillion species on this planet. People 70 years ago had smaller houses and less gadgets but lived just fine. it's not ethical to decimate untold species and ecosystems in order to maximize the standard of living of a handful of human generations of the industrial age. The current hyper-modern society is effed up anyways, i'd rather live on a lake fishing and killing game and read a good book as it is LOL.
What we need is a REALISTIC cost/benefit analysis of different forms of adapting vs not adapting. Or adapting by reducing GHG vs adapting to climate change. This convo is hard because of the ideologies and biases of people that get involved. We need educated people without a dog in the fight.